The Ascension of the Lord: Why Did Christ Leave Us?

The Ascension of Jesus

This past Thursday, May 14, was the Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord in the Roman Catholic calendar.  Although the United States Bishops decided some years back to allow this event to be observed liturgically on the following Sunday, in an apparent effort to make it "easier" for Catholics to actually show up for Mass to celebrate it, several dioceses still observe the Ascension on the traditional Thursday, some 40 days after Easter Sunday.  I don't live in one of those areas, but history tells us, via Sacred Scripture as well as Apostolic Tradition, that the Ascension happened 40 days after Easter, and that's good enough for me, so I observe the Ascension in my personal prayer of the Divine Office on the actual day.  If I wanted to be completely consistent with traditional practice, of course, I would also treat Ascension Thursday as a Holy Day of Obligation, but I haven't quite gotten there yet, and in this diocese it wouldn't be the liturgy of the Ascension, anyway.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it!  But, as noted, for most of the USA, Sunday, May 17 marks the liturgical observation of this key event in Salvation History.

I have to admit that in the early stages of my spiritual journey into the Catholic Church, it never occurred to me to ask "Why do we make such a big deal out of the Ascension?" It was clearly an important event since it is described in some detail by St. Luke not once but twice, once in his Gospel and again in the Acts of the Apostles, and is also referred to at the end of St. Mark's Gospel.  It's also one of the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary, so that is another reminder of its importance.  But I don't recall anyone during my Candidate period bringing up why it is important.  If anyone had asked me about it, I likely would have said something along the lines of "Isn't it just obvious that Jesus would go back to Heaven after his Resurrection?  He started the Church and hung around for a while to make sure enough people knew of the Resurrection, so then it was time to go home."

Well, actually, it's not necessarily that obvious to a lot of people, and looking back now, ten years later, I sort of wonder why I didn't think to ask why the significance of the Ascension is more than just "OK, Jesus went back to the Father.  Let's get working on that 'make disciples of all the nations' stuff."  In fact, once you do ask that first question, it more or less inevitably leads to another, more fundamental question: "Why did Jesus go back to Heaven when he did?  Why didn't he just stay on Earth until he converted everybody?"  That's a line of questioning I hear from time to time in my service as an RCIA catechist, from Inquirers and others who clearly are more astute at this stage of their journeys than I was.  So the first time it came up, I had to do my research to be able to give a coherent answer.  I should not have been surprised when it turned out that there is a ton of theology relating to the Ascension.

What follows here is a quick summary of what I have learned about the theology of the Ascension, with specific attention primarily to the question of why Christ ascended when he did, rather than staying among his people on Earth for some longer period. There is more, of course, much more, but a thorough treatment of the overall topic would require a book, maybe more than one.  I can't hope to do the topic justice in any form, but I can relate my superficial layman's understanding in case it might prove beneficial to someone else who happens to read this.

The first place I looked was Sacred Scripture itself, specifically Chapter 16 of St. John's Gospel, wherein Jesus at least partially explains to the Twelve why he has to leave them.  This discourse actually occurred on the night of the Lord's Supper, before Jesus went to Gethsemane, but it seems to apply more to his ultimate Ascension than merely to his impending Crucifixion and death.  It also is the only thing close to an explanation Jesus himself gives for his action, though there are other places in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, which can be applied to understanding both the reason for the Ascension and its layers of meaning for the world.

Here is the passage from John 16:

 Jn 16: [5] But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?' [6] But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts.
[7] Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [8] And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: [9] concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; [10] concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; [11] concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. [12] "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. [15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (Emphasis added.)

So, Jesus tells the Apostles (and us!) that he has to leave or else the Holy Spirit, who "will guide you into all the truth", will not come.  Well, OK, we sure do need the Holy Spirit for a lot of reasons, but you'll notice that Jesus still doesn't really say why this is the case.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a fairly short section (659-667) dealing with the general theology of the Ascension, and as is typical, it is both packed with information and beautifully written.  To see the whole text together with the footnotes, go here, the marvelous online searchable Catechism maintained by St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church of Picayune, MS.  But, to me at least, even this section of the CCC doesn't address in much detail the essential reasons why Jesus told us it "is to [our] advantage that I go away" except for this paragraph:

 661 This final stage stays closely linked to the first, that is, to his descent from heaven in the Incarnation. Only the one who "came from the Father" can return to the Father: Christ Jesus.⁵³⁸ "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."⁵³⁹ Left to its own natural powers humanity does not have access to the "Father's house", to God's life and happiness.⁵⁴⁰ Only Christ can open to man such access that we, his members, might have confidence that we too shall go where he, our Head and our Source, has preceded us. (Emphasis added.) ⁵⁴¹

Thus we learn two solid reasons for the Ascension:  Christ in his incarnate, resurrected glory had to go before us to pave the way for humans to reach Heaven, and by doing so he gave us the grounds for the theological virtue of Hope.

But that still isn't the whole answer.  One could still maintain, (if one wanted to argue with Jesus...not something I'd be anxious to do, but there are a lot of others who seem not to mind), that it still would have been much more efficient and more "loving" if our Lord had stuck around a while longer, rather than leaving everything to his Apostles, in all their fallen humanity, not to mention the rest of us, broken and sinful creatures that we are.

At some point in my inquiry, it finally dawned on me, in what today's social media culture would call a "facepalm moment", that it might be a good idea to see whether the greatest "inquiring mind" in history had taken a stab at this question.  So I turned to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.  Sure enough, there it is, in the Third Part, Question 57, Article 1: "Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?"

Pardon me please, for a few moments, while I brag on my patron Saint.  Anyone who is familiar with the Summa can skip this paragraph.  The format of this work is, once you get used to it, absolutely marvelous for equipping oneself for "Q and A" sessions on important theological issues.  St. Thomas first poses a question or proposition, then lays out a series of "Objections" to it.  He then gives a general answer ("I answer that...), before proceeding to dismantle each of the individual Objections, one by one. Actually, "dismantle" is a polite term for it. 

For this Article, "Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?", St. Thomas lays out four Objections, the third of which is precisely the one on the table now:

Objection 3. Further, the Son of God took human flesh for our salvation. But it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried always with us upon earth; thus He said to His disciples (Luke 17:22): "The days will come when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of man; and you shall not see it." Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to have ascended into heaven.

In his Reply to Objection 3, St. Thomas shows that the Ascension was necessary by reason of all three of the primary theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Charity (Love).  Since it would be rather presumptuous for me to attempt to "explain the explanation" of one such as Aquinas, I'll just paste it here, with some bold sections to emphasize key points:*

Reply to Objection 3. Although Christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from the faithful by the Ascension, still the presence of His Godhead is ever with the faithful, as He Himself says (Matthew 28:20): "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." For, "by ascending into heaven He did not abandon those whom He adopted," as Pope Leo says (De Resurrec., Serm. ii). But Christ's Ascension into heaven, whereby He withdrew His bodily presence from us, was more profitable for us than His bodily presence would have been.

First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things unseen. Hence our Lord said (John 16) that the Holy Ghost shall come and "convince the world . . . of justice," that is, of the justice "of those that believe," as Augustine says (Tract. xcv super Joan.): "For even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to shame"; wherefore he goes on to say (10): "'Because I go to the Father; and you shall see Me no longer'"--"For 'blessed are they that see not, yet believe.' Hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved: because 'you will believe in Me whom you shall not see.'"

Secondly, to uplift our hope: hence He says (John 14:3): "If I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to Myself; that where I am, you also may be." For by placing in heaven the human nature which He assumed, Christ gave us the hope of going thither; since "wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together," as is written in Matthew 24:28. Hence it is written likewise (Micah 2:13): "He shall go up that shall open the way before them."

Thirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly things. Hence the Apostle says (Colossians 3:1-2): "Seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth": for as is said (Matthew 6:21): "Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also." And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things, therefore our Lord said to His disciples (John 16:7): "It is expedient to you that I go; for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you." On which words Augustine says (Tract. xciv super Joan.): "Ye cannot receive the Spirit, so long as ye persist in knowing Christ according to the flesh. But when Christ withdrew in body, not only the Holy Ghost, but both Father and Son were present with them spiritually."

Well, gee, why didn't I think of that? 

As a final thought, in my research I found a homily given to the monks at the Benedictine Archabbey of Monte Cassino during Second Vespers on Ascension Thursday in 2009 by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, which I also found illuminating (and which bears a distinct Thomistic air, something that should surprise no one familiar with the theology of Benedict XVI):

The liturgy today invites us to contemplate the mystery of the Lord's Ascension. In the short Reading from the First Letter of Peter, we were urged to fix our gaze on our Redeemer who died "for sins once for all", that he might bring us back to God; he "has gone into Heaven" and is at the right hand of God "with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him" (cf. 1 Pt 3: 18, 22). "Carried up into Heaven" and made invisible to the eyes of his disciples, Jesus nevertheless did not abandon them. Indeed, "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Pt 3: 18), he is now present in a new way, within believers, and in him salvation is offered to every human being independently of his race, language or culture. (Emphasis added.)

(You can read the entire homily here.  It's very short and, like everything written by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, well worth the time.)

Reflecting on these lessons from two theological titans, one who is already a Doctor of the Church and another who I pray someday will be, it seems the whole thing comes back to the central point of Salvation History.  I've heard many people ask, "Why did God let the Fall happen to begin with?  He could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning, and then we'd all still be in the Garden. Why did he have to let them turn away, and make things so difficult for us?"  In essence, that is really the same question as "Why didn't Jesus just stay on Earth and convert the whole world?"

The answer, which lies behind the explanations presented here, is that God created us to love, not to be puppets.  Love is an act of the Will, and unless a person has Free Will, he cannot love.  Thus, if God's Creation was to have any meaning at all for us creatures, he had to give all of us, starting with our First Parents, the ability to reject him, to turn away from him in sin, as well as to accept his love and his free gift of faith, and point our lives toward him and the promise of eternal life in heaven.  Similarly, had Jesus stayed on Earth after the Resurrection and done the work of the Church all by himself, there would have been no need for the things that make us true Children of God: Faith, Hope and Love.  And that would be pretty boring, don't you think?

Thanks for reading.  Laudator Jesus Christus!

*You may notice that Aquinas' quotations from John 16 are slightly different in wording from the quote I inserted above.  In the Summa, which was of course written in Latin, St. Thomas used the Latin Vulgate Bible, while I used the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition.  Whoever translated the version of the Summa that appears on the NewAdvent.org website appears to have used the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was the first English translation of the Bible. (Yes, it preceded the KJV by about ten years. You can look it up.)

In Memoriam and Appreciation: Cardinal Francis George, R.I.P.

April 17, 2015

This afternoon we received the sad but expected news that the recently retired Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Francis George, died this morning after a long battle with cancer.  He had submitted his letter of retirement to then-Pope Benedict XVI on his 75th birthday, January 16, 2012 (75 being the "standard" retirement age for Bishops according to Canon Law.)  Pope Francis named his replacement in September of 2014.

I have linked here the full bio on the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and you should read it.  Cardinal George was a fascinating man with a most impressive curriculum vitae, including nine years as a philosophy professor at various seminaries and universities, a twelve-year stint in Rome as vicar general of his priestly order, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, several advanced degrees in philosophy and theology, and service as Bishop of Yakima, WA, Archbishop of Portland, OR, and for 17 years as Archbishop of Chicago.  He was also Vice President for three years and President for another three years of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  There's lots more in that bio; I say again, you really ought to read it.  The bio page also has links to numerous writings, speeches and homilies Cardinal George produced during his tenure in Chicago.  You could do a lot worse than browsing through those items as well, and reading as many as you can.  I promise you will learn some things, maybe a lot of things.

In my humble opinion, Francis Cardinal George was one of the giants of the Catholic Church, the value of whose service to Christ and his Church, not to mention the Archdiocese of Chicago, would be difficult, if not impossible, to overstate.  He was a powerful and tireless advocate for the Word of God and God's people, and a strong teacher and defender of the orthodox doctrines of the Church in matters of faith and morals.  For just one example, he rejected the disingenuous "seamless garment" argument of his predecessor, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who among other "Spirit of Vatican II" silliness sought to justify Catholics supporting pro-abortion politicians by equating the issue of abortion with so-called social justice issues. (Hence, the "seamless garment" metaphor--all Church teaching is one piece, all threads equal to one another.)  Cardinal George correctly, in my view, pointed out on numerous occasions that the ultimate social justice issue is the right of a baby to be born.  Without that right, all the rest of the Church's social teaching becomes moot.  Jesus clearly instructs us to care for the defenseless, the rejected, and the marginalized members of our society, and it's hard to imagine anyone more defenseless, rejected and marginalized than an unborn child being killed in the womb. 

But Cardinal George was far more than a pro-life advocate.  In addition to being a philosopher and theologian of the first rank, he knew how to bring to the people in a highly accessible way an understanding of the beauty, goodness and truth of Christianity from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints, and the wisdom of ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Plato.  By all accounts he ran the ship of his Archdiocese with firm integrity and great compassion.  He even had a direct and visible impact on all Mass-going Catholics in the United States, through the yeoman's work he did in his leadership posts at the USCCB to bring the beautifully updated translation of the Roman Missal to our parishes in November of 2011.

Time will tell whether Cardinal George's leadership of the Archdiocese of Chicago will prove to be just an interlude of orthodox wisdom or something more lasting.  I pray it will be the latter.

And so we say farewell to this giant figure, in the traditional words of the Church:

REQUIEM aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
(Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.  May he rest in peace.  Amen.)

Laudator Jesus Christus.

Easter--An Under-Appreciated Feast

April 4, 2015

So, here we are.  The disciplines of the Lenten season are about to expire, and we Catholics began this evening, at Easter Vigils around the world, to celebrate the most important event in human history, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.  Alleluia, He is risen!  Just typing that phrase gives me little chills.  But how different that is from the way I looked at Easter (not to mention Good Friday) for most of my life.

Growing up, I don't recall ever being taught much about the absolute necessity for the Resurrection as the foundation of our faith.  We kids were much more interested in Christmas, for all the obvious reasons, and even in the late 1950's, where my earliest memories lie, our culture seems to have pretty much relegated Easter to a distant second place, with bunnies and candy and eggs, and like that.  Maybe my Catholic friends back then took it more seriously than we did, but if so, they never talked about it with us non-Catholics.  Sure, we got Good Friday and Easter Monday off from school, even in the public schools, and I'm sure our Protestant ministers gave nice sermons on the importance of the Crucifixion and Resurrection on Easter Sunday, but to my recollection we just didn't hear much about it otherwise, and everyone still acted as if Christmas was the really big feast. 

Today, of course, we live in a post-Christian culture which is more and more willing to engage in outright persecution of anyone who takes Christianity seriously, (although, obviously, they haven't started killing us yet here in the good old U.S.A.; please pray for our persecuted brethren in the Middle East and Africa).  Most in public schools don't even dare mention Good Friday or Easter out of fear of "offending" someone, much less give kids a school holiday.  Instead, we have "spring break", which is just another week of vacation, or for many college students, something most resembling a pagan orgy. Religious significance is ignored or even actively suppressed.

So as I made my journey into the Roman Catholic Church ten years ago, I was for all practical purposes learning from scratch about the true importance, not only of Easter, but also the entire Paschal Mystery. As usual, the depth and breadth of Catholic Church teachings about the Resurrection bring marvelous rewards to those who plumb them.

As for the Resurrection itself, St. Paul makes the importance pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, as follows:

[12] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[13] But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
[15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
[16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
[17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
[18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
[19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.

That does get the point across, I believe!  Catholic theology has taught me that all of Salvation History is bound together as a single piece, most especially the events of Holy Week, from the entry into Jerusalem to the Last Supper to the Passion and finally the Resurrection, but without that last one, the whole thing loses its meaning.  We would all be like the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke's Gospel, men without hope, sadly reflecting on what might have been (even though they had the "might have been" part wrong, as did most of Christ's followers, since they were looking for an earthly King who would open a can of you-know-what on the Romans and liberate the Jews.)  Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion was just another Roman execution of a rabble-rouser.  Without the Resurrection, the Pharisees could have just gone back to being Pharisees, (which I guess they did anyway, but they wouldn't have had Christians to kick around), and the Sadducees would have gone on arguing with the Pharisees about whether there is an afterlife, instead of converting to Christianity in such large numbers that they basically ceased to exist as a major faction in Judaism.  Indeed, as Paul points out, absent the Resurrection, Christ Himself would be just another prophet, killed by the people to whom he was preaching. 

We Catholics, of course, get an added celebration every year at the Easter Vigil, when we welcome  all those who seek full communion with the Church that Christ founded, and who receive the Sacraments of Initiation:  Baptism (if not previously baptized using water and the Trinitarian formula set forth by Jesus in the last verses of the Gospel of Matthew), Confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist.  In these events, we celebrate souls receiving new life in Christ, the sealing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal salvation, seeing in each of them the promise of the Resurrection itself.  It does help to keep the mind focused on the real-world impact of the central event, in addition to making us able to share the joy of these new Catholics and their families and friends as we all share in the joy of the Risen Lord's opening of the gates of Heaven.

And that, as St. Paul reminds us, is really the point.  The Resurrection of Christ in his glorified body gives us the hope of eternal life.  What else is there, really, to live for in this life?

As Catholics, it seems to me that we also bear in mind to a greater extent than most other Christians (except our Orthodox brethren, of course) that Good Friday always precedes Easter Sunday.  The burden of human sin had to be carried to the Cross and atoned for in our Lord's suffering sacrifice before the opening of Heaven could make any sense.  This is why we use the Crucifix, rather than an empty Cross, as a symbol of our faith: because we need to be reminded of the price of our redemption.  As St. Paul also said, "...but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles." 1 Cor 1:23.

One last point, which came as a great surprise to me upon my entry into the Church, is that the Catholic Church continues to celebrate Easter all the way to Pentecost, fifty days later.  Each day in the "Octave of Easter" is a liturgical Solemnity, and the equivalent, liturgically speaking, of Easter Sunday itself.

Yes, as I have learned, the Church takes Easter very, very seriously.  What a pity that so many Christians today, including many Catholics, no longer act as if they fully understand its true significance.

A happy and blessed Easter season to all!  Laudator Jesus Christus!

The Annunciation--A Feast For ALL Christians

March 25, 2015

Today the Church marks the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, the day when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to a young (probably 14 or 15 years old) Jewish girl in the obscure town of Nazareth in Galilee, and announced the beginning of the Greatest Story Ever Told.  If you're not fully familiar with the details, it's all set forth by St. Luke in Chapter 1, verses 26-38 of his Gospel.

Strictly speaking, what we celebrate is really three separate events: (1) the Annunciation by Gabriel to Mary of the unique role for which God had chosen her, (2) Mary's assent to that role (a/k/a her "fiat"), and (3) the Incarnation (conception) in Mary's womb of the Word made flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Because God in His infinite love gave all human beings free will, (and any of our Calvinist brethren who believe in "double predestination" are welcome to comment and explain their view, which essentially denies free will), the incarnation did not take place until Mary said "yes." 

I learned from some quick research that in various Church documents and liturgical books as far back as the fifth century, this feast was referred to, and properly in my view, as that of the "Annunciation and Incarnation."  For reasons I've not yet discovered, the common reference was at some point shortened to Annunciation, which can be somewhat confusing since, as noted, the Annunciation and Incarnation, both events of awesome significance to the world, were not one and the same occurrence.

For Catholics in the USA, unfortunately, the confusion was heightened by the way the original International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) handled the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed* back around 1970, when the Roman Missal was being translated into English for the first time.  ICEL at that time took the "dynamic equivalence translation" approach, for reasons too complex to discuss here in any depth, and one of the results was what I view as a poor translation of the following line from the Latin:

"Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est."

Until the beginning of Advent in 2011, when the English translation of the Third Edition of the (Novus Ordo) Roman Missal was finally** put to use in parishes in the United States, this line was translated as follows:

 "...and by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man."

"Incarnatus est", which means "was incarnate", had been changed to "was born." Since medical science as well as theology both indicate the Incarnation would have occurred at the moment Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, this was simply wrong.  Jesus became man, i.e. a human being with a soul, nine months before he was born, not on Christmas Day itself.  In addition, the original translation seemed to go against the long-standing teaching of the Church with respect to both contraception and abortion.  If a person doesn't "become man" (or woman) until they are born, what's all the fuss about, anyway?  So, at the stroke of a pen, so to speak, a very important change was made in language Christians had been reciting since the fourth century, when the Creed was first compiled by the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople.

Well, since we now have a new translation done by the "formal correspondence" method, which seeks to make the English words more closely resemble the original Latin, it's fair to say the Holy See  agreed that the previous English translations had a lot of problems (not just in the Creed).  We now say "...was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man", which gets us back to what the Latin text has always said. 

Now that we have that cleared up, my primary point here is, as stated in the title of this post, to make the case that ALL Christians ought to celebrate this day in some fashion.  At present, in addition to Roman and Eastern Rite Catholics and our Orthodox brethren, I believe only the Anglican/Episcopal and Lutheran traditions make any formal reference at all to this world-changing event, and it may not be done in all the various subsets of Lutheranism.  Individual ministers may well commemorate the Annunciation/Incarnation in various denominations or "non-denominational" congregations, but it's not uniform because, of course, they lack either liturgical worship or a central teaching authority, or both. 

I think this is not only a sad symptom of the divisions that have existed among followers of Christ for about the past 500 years, but is also rather un-Biblical.  The Gospel of Luke belongs to all of us, and its account of the Annunciation and Incarnation of Jesus Christ couldn't be any more obvious in its significance.  Human biology being what it is, if we celebrate Christmas on December 25, then March 25 is as good a day as any to recognize the day Christ "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7).  So why is it all but ignored by so many?  Heck, even if you're a Double Predestination Calvinist, you have to concede that God came into the world when Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb.  You don't even have to pay attention to the fact that God waited for Mary to give her consent before it happened.  For those of our separated brethren who bristle at the mere thought of giving any sort of honor or veneration to the Mother of the Lord (see Lk 1:43), fine; you don't have to do that, either.  The Word just became flesh, people! (Jn 1:14). We should act like it!

Before I close, let me note that tomorrow, March 26, is the tenth anniversary of my entry into Holy Mother Church, at the Easter Vigil of 2005.  Thank you, Lord, for calling me back from my secular ways and bestowing on me the immeasurable grace of a life of faith in Jesus Christ, and for leading me to the fullness of Christian truth in the Catholic Church.

Laudator Jesus Christus!


* More commonly called the "Nicene Creed."  I think you should get some kind of indulgence if you can pronounce that full name without hesitation, but since I'm not the Pope, I can't give it to you.  His address is pretty easy to find, though.
 
** The Third Edition came out in Latin in 2000.  So it took ICEL and the Bishops' Conferences of the English-speaking countries "only" eleven years to get the translation done.  If you're interested in a nearly play-by-play account of that arduous process, go to the website of the Adoremus Society and dig around in their archives.  It's actually fascinating, if you're into that sort of thing.  Lots of Church politics involved, too.  Whee!

Communion In The Hand vs. On The Tongue--Does It Matter?

While I am anything but the World's Biggest Fan of the "Crux" blog run by John L. Allen, Jr. of the Boston Globe, occasionally a friend will send me something from that site, or I'll encounter an interesting piece on New Advent or some other aggregator site, and will give it a read.  Just today I received via email a link to an interesting commentary on Crux, by Mathew N. Schmalz, on the seemingly endless debate about what is the "better" way to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament--on the tongue or in the hand?  It's worth reading and considering, and has a good brief review of the history of communion in the hand in the USA, as well as the author's experiences in other countries.  Mr. Schmalz concludes his reflection as follows:

"Debating Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue does raise important issues. But all too often, it has become a way, on both sides, of judging people we do not know. In doing so, we can distract ourselves not only from the miracle what is happening in front of us, but also from the miracle that is happening alongside of us.
And so what is it about Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue?
As always, the problem is with our own sinful selves."

Nothing to argue with there, really, although I might add that part of the problem is the choice itself, which the Church could take care of by revoking the indult given to the US Bishops years ago.  More on that below.

My friend also e-mailed this link, to a post from several years ago by one of my favorite Catholic bloggers, Father John Zuhlsdorf (a/k/a "Father Z.")  It raises what I think is a serious issue, that of the fragments or crumbs which tend to fall from the hosts used in most Catholic churches in the US (based on both personal experience and some research), even if all concerned are exercising due care.  Fr. Z demonstrates photographically that crumbs/fragments are likely to be present in one's hand merely by having the consecrated host placed there by the priest or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.  I'd venture to say that darn near nobody ever licks or otherwise removes any fragments from the palm of their hand after consuming the Sacrament, so those fragments, each of which contains the whole and entire Presence of Christ, end up getting dropped somewhere between the place of reception and the communicant's pew.  That is with the exception, of course, of those communicants who bolt directly for the parking lot upon receiving.  Their fragments could even end up outside.  (More on my view of early departure from Mass in a subsequent post, perhaps!)

The friend who sent me these articles commented that he stopped receiving in the hand after seeing Fr. Z's photographs. I can understand that.

As for myself, I've floated back and forth on this practice since my entry into the Church (ten years ago next week!)  At my original parish, where I went through RCIA, we were not even told we had a choice; had it not been for my "auxiliary" education in the faith via EWTN, Catholic Answers and independent reading, I would not have known anyone received other than in the hand prior to actually seeing people do it at Mass.  (Remember, we Candidates were not there to watch the communion process until the Easter Vigil itself.)  I have read all sorts of commentary from both perspectives, including issues such as those raised by Fr. Z and by the writer on Crux, as well as hygiene, reverence, tradition vs. indult, the "throne" theory attributed to St. Cyril and endorsed in word, at least, by Pope Benedict XVI, in the book Light of the World, although he normally required receipt on the tongue when he celebrated Mass, and probably others.  I've also seen commentary such as appears in the comments on Fr. Z's post about the type of host used--the thin white kind vs. the larger and slightly darker colored ones like we use at my current parish.  Many say the small, white ones are less prone to leaving particles, but I wouldn't know about that; I do know they dissolve quickly and don't require chewing, which is another issue that seems to get folks excited.  

In any case, my thought process has always been centered on showing the reverence I believe we all should show to the Lord's Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.  Once I learned the teaching of the Church on the Real Presence, I was so captivated by it that showing great reverence just seemed like the only logical thing to do.  That doesn't mean I think I'm smarter than anyone else or have some special gift of discernment; on the contrary, one of the things that attracted me initially to the Church was the much greater sense of reverence I saw at a Catholic Mass as compared to the Protestant (mostly Methodist) services to which I was accustomed.  Some adherents of the TLM greatly disparage today's "Ordinary Form" as having very little reverence in comparison with the TLM, but the OF was all I knew when I started my journey, and it can be celebrated with great reverence, indeed. 

Deep down, I think showing proper reverence doesn't depend on whether one receives in the hand or on the tongue, although I appreciate the argument that says only ordained clergy or properly trained lay ministers should handle the consecrated host. I also am aware that a fair number of folks who might be called "traditionalists" believe that communion in the hand was an intentional effort on the part of "modernists" to strip the Church of belief in the Real Presence.  They maintain (and I have not researched the history here) that immediately after the Protestant separation, Luther and others adopted the practice of communion in the hand precisely as a means of demonstrating rejection of the Catholic doctrine.  But I'm not getting into all of that here.  The Church still teaches Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, so if communion in the hand was an attempt to change that, it has failed, at least so far.

To me, what is most important is a person's general demeanor.  In the Sacred Liturgy, every movement and posture of the priest, deacon(s), lay ministers and faithful is intended to be meaningful, because we are physical persons, and how we move and act is part and parcel of what is in our hearts--it both reflects what is there, and helps to form us into better disciples.  I remember reading a while back about one of our separated brethren saying that if he believed what the Catholic Church teaches about Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, he would crawl on his belly up to the foot of the altar to receive Him.  And, in principle, he's absolutely right.  Now, obviously, having everyone prostrate themselves to receive Holy Communion would make things a bit difficult logistically, but it's the same principle that underlies the practice of the communion rail in the TLM, and there are times when I wish we could go back at least to that manner of distributing Communion, even within the Ordinary Form rite.  

This next part I say somewhat reluctantly, in light of the passage I quoted above from the Crux article, so I'm trying not to be sinfully judgmental here, in the sense of inferring from exterior actions what is in someone's heart:  I especially tend to wish for a return to the communion rail when I see people at Sunday Mass bopping up the aisle as if they were in line for a burger and fries, casually receiving the Eucharist without even a minor bow of the head, and then walking away as if the whole thing were sort of boring, and gee, I'm glad THAT's over with, now what's for brunch?  It's entirely possible that these folks are solid believers who do all they can to live out the faith in their daily lives, but you'd never know it from the way they treat Holy Communion.  There is also a very good chance that the reason they don't show more reverence is that nobody ever taught them otherwise.  And that's really sad.

At the end of it all, it may well be that the loss of some particles of the Blessed Sacrament, and thus the Presence of the Lord, is unavoidable even when everyone is careful, regardless of whether communion is given in the hand or only on the tongue.  However, if I were Czar of the Universe (to quote my professor of contract law way back when),  I would prefer to see it standardized, even if for no other reason than to shut off the frequently uncharitable debate.  And going a bit further in the line of reasoning, it makes sense to me that the fewer people who touch the consecrated host, the more likely it will be that such loss can be avoided.  Again, as noted, I'm not convinced that it's in any way "bad" for us ordinary lay Catholics to touch the Blessed Sacrament with our grubby hands, as long as we treat it as what it is, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I just think it's a mathematical certainty that when we all receive in the hand, more little pieces which are the substance of the Lord Jesus will be dropped on floors or on the ground and walked on, unknowingly, by lots of other people than would be the case if everyone received on the tongue.

So, as Czar, I would opt for receipt on the tongue only, and require the use of patens. Also, to shut down another sometimes contentious discussion, this one about hygiene at Mass, if the Precious Blood is to be administered to the faithful, it should be by intinction only.  The USCCB could do this, simply by declining to follow the indult (exception) granted back in the oh-so-silly 1970's.  Maybe they could spend some time studying this instead of issuing all sorts of political statements on issues beyond their expertise.  Or the Holy See could revoke the indult, though I suspect that's not an issue very high on the Pope's radar at the moment.  Either way, I bet that after the usual period of wailing and grinding of teeth that erupts whenever a change in liturgical norms occurs, everyone would get used to it and life would go on.

Of course, if communion in the hand were to be abolished in the USA, priests and Ministers and communicants would all need remedial training on how to make receipt on the tongue work smoothly, as too many people don't really know how to, for lack of a better term, present a proper "target" so the priest or extraordinary minister can place the host on the tongue without actually touching the tongue with their fingers.  That's yucky, even if you don't have a communicable disease to spread around (and if you do, you should probably just stay home, anyway.) Also, I suspect that since in my experience about 95% of communicants receive in the hand, the EMHC's themselves are not very adept at placing the host, either.  Time to practice!  Pizza afterwards!

That's my little contribution to this discussion.  Thanks for reading.  Laudator Jesus Christus!

UPDATE--March 24, 2015:

A friend and RCIA colleague at my parish went and did some research on this issue and came up with the following:

Thomas Aquinas in ST 77:4 states:

“Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.”

This still needs to be reconciled with the practice of rinsing the ciboria on the altar to capture the particles left in the bottom of the vessel after Communion, as great care is required by the Church to be taken by the priests and deacons to ensure these are not lost.  I think that is fairly easy to do, since it is obvious that when particles reside in the sacred vessels, they are in fact part of the consecrated species.  However, once removed from the altar, if reduced to "fine particles", then Aquinas is saying it no longer remains the body and blood of Christ if it can no longer be recognized as bread.  

Makes sense to me.  

Laudator Jesus Christus!

Bravo for the Bishops of Virginia--And Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco

The Virginia Parade:  I've been following this story since I first saw it on the Web yesterday.  Seems there is an annual St. Patrick's day parade in Norfolk, VA (as in so many other cities coast to coast), and this one is apparently run by a regional Council of the Knights of Columbus, a wonderful organization of which I am a proud member at my home parish here in Texas.  That Council decided to invite Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to be Grand Marshal of the parade.  According to accounts in Catholic media, the Council did not bother mentioning this to the pastor of their parish, the Bishop, or the Virginia State Council before they did it.  Gov. McAuliffe is a vocal supporter of abortion "rights", homosexual "marriage"and the HHS mandate, and thus publicly stands against the Church on these and possibly other issues.  For him to be honored by a Knights of Columbus Council is scandalous, to say the least.  The parish pastor, at the urging of his Bishop, contacted the State K of C Council for Virginia, who first told him the decision to honor McAuliffe would be reversed, but then informed him the Council had refused to withdraw its invitation.  As reported here , both Virginia Bishops have now publicly stated their support for the pastor, who has severed the parish's ties with the Council and issued a letter to his entire parish explaining what has happened.  Good for him, and good for the Bishops.  

Archbishop Cordileone's Battle:  You've likely heard or read about this, too.  The short story is, Abp. Cordileone is amending the contracts of the teachers at the Catholic high schools in the SF Archdiocese to clarify that they are expected to adhere to Church teachings when acting or speaking at school or in public.  He makes the point, which seems to me a no-brainer, that teachers in a Catholic school ought not to take public positions or engage in public actions in contradiction to the teachings of the Church.  To no one's surprise, the politicians, most of the teachers themselves, and the usual California-style busybodies have all hyperventilated; the City Council is even threatening legal action against the Archbishop.  Well, excuse me, but these are private schools which are owned by the Archdiocese, which in turn is supposed to have a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion--in this case, obviously, Roman Catholicism.  If you want to oppose Church teachings, fine; you have that right, but not while you're taking a paycheck for teaching in a Catholic school!  Bravo to Archbishop Cordileone for standing up for Christ's Church in the face of secular persecution.  

"Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5: 11-12.)  Amen.

The Woman at the Well

Sunday, March 8, 2015

If your parish has a group of Catechumens preparing for the Sacraments of Initiation at the Easter Vigil, now less than a month away (!), then at least one scheduled Sunday Mass most likely included a rite called the "First Scrutiny", and instead of the Gospel reading about Jesus running the money-changers and merchants out of the Jerusalem Temple from John 2: 13-22, the faithful heard about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well (John 4: 1-42.)

Ever since my own RCIA journey ten years ago, this has been one of my favorite Gospel accounts.  It contains multiple layers of meaning and describes startling actions and statements by our Lord, all presented in the mystical, fluid prose of St. John the Evangelist.  Certainly the Gospels are chock full of stories like this, which point in multiple directions and seem to reveal new truths each time one reads and reflects on them, and it's hard to put my finger on exactly why this particular story has always resonated so deeply for me.  I'll try to lay it all out here, with some significant help from the commentary of Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible-New Testament (Ignatius Press, 2010).  If you don't already own this marvelous volume, I recommend it most highly.

Most every serious commentator on this story points out, as they should, the important historical context of this encounter.  Recall that in Jesus' day, the Jews considered the Samaritans an impure, apostate people, and refused to have anything to do with them.  (For their part, the Samaritans weren't particularly interested in socializing with the Jews, either.)  The Assyrians invaded northern Palestine in the eighth century B.C. and had their way with the place and the people.  Most Israelites living in the area were deported and replaced by Assyrian immigrants and other foreigners, all of whom were pagans and idolaters.  The few remaining Israelites were labeled Samaritans by the southern Palestinian Jews, and held in contempt for intermarrying with the invaders and adopting many of their pagan ways.  The Jews particularly regarded as forbidden the sharing of food or drink with Samaritans.  In addition, Jewish tradition at the time strongly discouraged men from having any public interaction with women.  Finally, as portrayed a number of times in John and the other Gospels, Jews were expected to avoid any association with "sinners." 

So right off the bat in this story, Jesus ignores three significant cultural rules of his community.  Of course, this was just one of many such instances in his Earthly ministry.  It bears noting here that all of these situations in which Jesus defied convention add up to a powerful rebuttal of the notion that he chose only men to be his Apostles out of deference to cultural norms.  That one just doesn't wash.  Today is not the time for me to discuss the inapplicability of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to our beloved sisters in Christ, but the absence of any women among the Twelve always has been understood by the Church as one of the major reasons for it. 

Getting back to the story, after Jesus asks the woman for a drink, and she asks him why he's even bothering to speak to her, ("How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?"), the Lord drops the first of his verbal bombshells, saying (I'm paraphrasing) "If you knew who you are talking to, you would have asked and I would have given you living water."  (Jn 4:9-10) The woman's reaction to Jesus' mysterious statement is, unsurprisingly, a sort of first-century equivalent of "Huh?"  She points out that Jesus doesn't even have a bucket, so where, she asks, is he going to get this "living water", anyway?  Then she issues a little challenge--"Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?" (Jn 4:11-12)

Here, the Samaritan woman acted without the malice normally shown by Pharisees who challenged Jesus with various questions throughout the Gospels, but her question nevertheless managed to generate one of the Lord's classic evangelistic prophesies:  "Jesus said to her, 'Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' " (Jn 4:13-14) (Don't you wish you could go back in time and hear some of these statements as they were made, and watch people's reactions?)  Now the woman apparently understands that Jesus is not talking about the well water, but something else entirely...and she wants some!  (Who wouldn't, after that little speech?)  But even so, her reply shows that she doesn't completely get it: "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw." (Jn 4:15) She seems to think it would be pretty neat never to be thirsty and not have to trudge back and forth from home to that well a couple of times a day, but she misses the more supernatural aspect of Jesus' statement, especially the reference to eternal life.  (Whenever I read or hear this part, I think "Hello, pay attention!")

Since our Lord was well accustomed to having people fail to understand him fully, especially when he spoke in "mystical mode", he decides it's time for a little demonstration.  He directs her to go get her husband and come back, and when she admits she has no husband, Jesus reveals that he knows all about her situation and her checkered past--five husbands, and currently living with a man not her husband.  Now, she elevates her opinion of him, saying "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet."  After she mentions that her people worship "on this mountain" and that "you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship," Jesus proceeds in rather dramatic language to predict that both the Samaritan mountain and the Jewish temple worship will be replaced: "Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.' "  (Jn 4: 16-24)

As Hahn and Mitch note in their commentary, here Jesus is referring to the distinctions between Christian worship--spirit and truth, a theme Jesus will repeat at the conclusion of the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6--and both the ritual animal sacrificial worship of the Jews and the idolatry of the Samaritans.  Notice also how Jesus shows great respect for the Samaritan woman, as he addresses her in the same way as St. John witnessed him addressing his Mother on two important occasions, at the Wedding of Cana ("O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come", Jn 2:4) and while hanging on the Cross ("Woman, behold your son", Jn 19:26).  Otherwise, I can find only three instances where Jesus uses this form of address:  In Mt 15:28, when he heals the demon-possessed daughter of the Canaanite woman, ("O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire"); at the healing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath ("Woman, you are freed from your infirmity", Lk 13:12), and on the day of the Resurrection when he speaks to Mary Magdalene, ("Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?", Jn 20:15). 

At this point, the Samaritan woman begins to get a glimmer of what's going on, it seems, as she replies to Jesus' predictions by saying "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things." And then Jesus drops the Big One: "Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.' "  (Jn 4: 25-26)  This is one of only two times in the entire New Testament that Jesus explicitly claims to be the Christ; the other is during St. Mark's account of the trial before the Sanhedrin. (Mk 14:61-62.)

After the disciples return and "marvel" at the fact that Jesus is talking to the woman, the conversation bears immediate fruit, as she heads back into town and starts telling everyone about her encounter with "a man who told me all that I ever did", and asking "Can this be the Christ?" (Jn 4:27-29)  In effect, she becomes an evangelist herself, and as a result, St. John tells us, the people of the town began coming out to see Jesus, asking him and his disciples to stay with them, which they did for two days.  Many from that city became believers, either because of the woman's testimony or from hearing Jesus' teaching.  (Jn 4:30; 39-42)  The remainder of the account describes Jesus' speech to his disciples after the woman has "left her water jar" (similar to how the disciples themselves "left everything behind") to spread the news to her community of her encounter.   Again, as he so often did, Jesus reminds the disciples that doing the will of the Father is the primary mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work." (Jn 4:34)  This recalls his statement, recorded in each of the synoptic Gospels, that those who do the will of the Father are in effect members of Jesus' family  ("my mother, sisters and brothers"; see Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35; Lk 8:21). 

How, then, to look at this story as a whole?  On the surface, in addition to Jesus' typical defiance of cultural conventions, I think we have in this account one of the more impressive stories of large-scale evangelization and conversion in the New Testament, especially given that it was unaccompanied by the working of any miracle of healing, feeding a crowd, or raising people from the dead.  We are not told the size of the city or exactly how many became believers due to these events, but the implication seems clear that at least a majority of the citizens were converted, thanks to the faith awakened in a single Samaritan woman.  In fact, the only similar conversion event I can think of from the New Testament is the baptism of 3,000 on the day of the Christian Pentecost, recounted in Chapter 2 of the Acts of the Apostles, which was preceded by the miracle of tongues, itself triggered by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room.  That's pretty heady company for a simple woman of Samaria, living in a state of serious sin, and stands in stark contrast to the reception Jesus got in his own home town of Nazareth, where his friends and neighbors tried to throw him off a cliff in return for his teaching. (Lk 4:16-30)

But of course there is more under the surface.  The Samaritan woman's story seems to be a microcosm of the experience of all who seek to fill the longing in every human heart for God.  Her having cycled through five husbands suggests, as our priest noted in his homily this weekend, that she was searching for love, obviously without much success prior to encountering Christ.  The "living water" Jesus promises to her is traditionally understood by the Church to refer to Baptism, but Hahn and Mitch also note several instances where the Old Testament prophets used water as a metaphor for God's blessings.  For example, in Isaiah 12:3, "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation"; or again in Isaiah 44:3, "For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring."  And who can forget the beautiful symbolism of Ezekiel 47:1-12, where the prophet describes his angelic vision of the life-giving river flowing around and out from the Temple?

So whether by Sacrament or otherwise, as through prayer and reflection or other ways of seeking God, the "living water" of God's blessings comes to us, if we are willing to receive it.  Often, this means major conversion for us, as for the Samaritan woman leaving her water jar, the Apostles leaving their former lives, or perhaps less dramatic but no less important changes in the little things we do, think and say each day.  But it never fails to have an effect.  This, I would venture to guess, is at least one reason why the Church places the story of the Woman at the Well in the liturgy of the First Scrutiny, where the journey of Catechumens on their way to full communion with the Church heads into the home stretch.

That's all for now.  Thanks for reading. Laudator Jesus Christus!